------- Forwarded message follows -------

STEM CELL LEGISLATION (Senate - September 28, 2000)
[Page: S9447]
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I was not on the floor a few moments ago when
the distinguished majority leader and the assistant leader for the Democrats
had a colloquy when the majority leader propounded a unanimous consent
request concerning legislation on stem cells. I think it useful to make a
brief comment or two and then to have, if I might, a brief discussion with
the majority leader about what will happen on the future of the bill.

The stem cell legislation in question would eliminate the prohibition now
in effect which limits the use of Federal funds, principally from the
National Institutes of Health, from paying for extracting stem cells from
embryos. Once the stem cells have been extracted from embryos, then Federal
funds may be used on their research, and private funds--if I might have the
attention of the majority leader for a moment while we discuss the stem
cell issue, as to what is going to happen next. Without describing the
legislation--which I can in a minute--I ask the distinguished majority
leader what he anticipates in the future.

When this issue to eliminate the limitation on funding was stricken from
the appropriations bill last year, it was done so after I consulted with
the majority leader because concluding it would have resulted in a
filibuster and tied up that appropriations bill. The majority leader made
a commitment, which he has fulfilled today, to bring the bill to the floor.

It had been my hope that we would have had the bill on the floor at an
earlier time, but I fully understand the complexities of the schedule;
and once we had reached September, the only way to deal with the matter
was on a limited time agreement to be obtained through unanimous consent.

So it is my hope that the intent and the thrust of what was proposed--I
think intended--was that that the bill would be on the calendar and
considered when we reconvened, when it would not have to be subjected to
a unanimous consent request, but it might have to pass a filibuster vote
on a motion to proceed.

[Page: S9448]
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if the Senator from Pennsylvania will yield, let
me acknowledge the fact that the Senator from Pennsylvania did agree at a
critical moment last year to remove this issue from the
Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill so we could complete it. It was
clearly one of the difficulties we were having in wrapping up the session.

I committed at that time that we would make an effort to get it up this
year and that I would do that. We probably should have made this effort
earlier. I owe him an apology for not doing that. Let me say, in recent
days we have tried to clear it. There is objection to it. I believed it
was important that I go ahead and make that request publicly because we
made that commitment to the Senator.

I know how strongly the Senator from Pennsylvania feels about this issue,
and a lot of other people feel very strongly about it. I know we had some
testimony on it within the last couple of weeks in the Senate. There are
strong and passionate feelings about it on both sides in terms of what it
can do for some health problems, and there are others who obviously think
this is an improper use. I am sure it will be a good debate whenever it
is debated and wherever it is debated. I will work with the Senator next
year to try to get it up earlier in the session. Before I make a commitment
at this time that I will file cloture, I have to make sure it will not
fall through and I can keep that commitment.

But I will work with him to see that he gets a shot at it. He always has
the opportunity to offer amendments on bills that come along. There is not
just one way to get it done. I do believe I owe him a commitment to keep
working with him. Even though I don't necessarily agree with him on the
substance, I think on the procedure I have an obligation to keep a
commitment to help him.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished majority leader for
his statement. I appreciate his last statement that he doesn't necessarily
agree with me, which leaves some room that he doesn't necessarily disagree
with me. I am not looking for a response at this time. Senator Lott is well
known to have an open mind on controversial issues and on matters not
debated. I agree with him when he says it is subject to passionate feelings
on both sides.

We had debates and witnesses. We had seven hearings on this issue. We had
Senator Brownback, the principal opponent of the legislation, to testify,
and Congressman Jay Dickey, the principal opponent of the legislation in
the House, to testify.

The hearings have always been balanced, and we have had people who have
opposed the legislation at every one of the hearings.

It is a matter which is appropriate for the Senate to consider. I appreciate
what the majority leader has said about giving consideration to an early
listing next year, and not making a commitment on pressing a cloture motion. I think a cloture moti
on could be filed by any 17 Senators. But we are not going to get involved in that at this time.

But I did want to say for the Record why I believe it is important that the
matter be considered. And it is because stem cells have such a remarkable
opportunity to cure many of the most difficult maladies and diseases which
confront America and the world today. These stem cells have the potential
to be placed in the human body to replace other cells.

We had testimony, for example, from Michael J. Fox, who suffers from
Parkinson's. We had the experts testify that these stem cells could be
enormously effective in curing Parkinson's. That is an obtainable goal
perhaps in as early as 5 years.

The stem cells may also be useful on Alzheimer's disease, on strokes, on
spinal cord injuries, perhaps on cancer, and perhaps on heart ailments.

There is virtually no limit to what these stem cells can do. They are a
veritable fountain of youth.

I have said publicly that I understand those on the other side of the issue.
It involves taking an embryo which has been created for purposes of in vitro
fertilization but not used. These embryos are discarded. There are some
100,000 embryos in existence today which will not be used. So the issue is
whether you simply discard these embryos which will have no further effect,
or whether you use these embryos to produce stem cells which can cure many
very serious maladies.

There are other alternatives such as adult stem cells. But the scientific
evidence has been very compelling, in my judgment, that adult stem cells
cannot do the job, but stem cells can from embryos.

There are also stem cells from fetal tissue. Those stem cells are limited,
and we really need the stem cells from these embryos to provide the research
opportunities to cure so many of these ailments.

This is not an issue which is going to lead to the creation of embryos for
the purposes of extracting stem cells. When we have the fetal tissue
discussion, many people are concerned that they will produce more abortions
to have fetal tissue available. In fact, that was not the case--fetal
tissue was used from abortions which would have occurred in any event.

It is not a controversial pro-life versus pro-choice issue as we have had
many Senators who are strongly pro-life support stem cell research in this
legislation. Senator Strom Thurmond, who is very strongly pro-life and an
acknowledged very conservative Senator, testified before the subcommittee
in favor of this legislation to have Federal funding for extraction of stem
cells from embryos.

Senator Connie Mack of Florida has spoken about this bill, another pro-life
Senator speaking in favor of it. Very strong statements have come from
Senator Gordon Smith, who is pro-life and very concerned about these
underlying issues, as to why he feels the balance is in favor of this sort
of legislation.

Since the issue was mentioned and there is not another Senator on the floor
seeking recognition, I thought I would explain in abbreviated form where
this legislation is pending, and why I have been pressing. It comes
naturally within the subcommittee of appropriations which I chair.

The prohibition against use of Federal funds to extract stem cells from
embryos was placed in a bill which came out of this subcommittee. When the
prohibition was imposed, there was no one who really knew the miraculous
potential of stem cells, it being a veritable fountain of youth. This
only came into existence with the research disclosed in November of 1998.
Since that time, our subcommittee has had seven hearings to explore the
issue very fully.

It is my hope that the matter will come before the Senate early next year.
I appreciate what the majority leader has had to say. We will let the
Senate work its will. Let us consider it. Let us debate it. Let us analyze
it and come to judgment on it, which is our role as legislators, in a way
which considers all of the claims and considers all of the positions but
resolves the matter so that public policy will be determined in accordance
with our constitutional standards and our legislative procedures.

I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

------- End of forwarded message -------